
V^^^ L. 




Class. 
Book. 






SPEECH 



OP 



HON. GRAHAM N. FITCH. OF INDIANA. 



THE CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS; 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, DECEMBER 99, 1857. 










WASHINGTON': 
PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. 

1857. 



THE PUESIDENT^S MESSAGE-KANSAS. 



The Senate having resumed the consideration j 
rjf the motion of Mr. Douglas, to refer so much ! 
of the President's message as relates to aflairs in 
Kansas to tlie Committee on Territories — I 

Mr. FITCH said: i 

Mr. President: Being indebted to the courtesy j 
of the Senator from Michigan for the floor, I shall 
ask the indulgence of the Senate during but a 
brief occupancy of it, for I am anxious, as I know 
those abottt me are, to listen to that Senator, and 
to others who can be heard on this subject v/ith 
far more pleasure and profit than anything I can 
say will afford. 

Yesterday, sir, was the day fixed for the action 
of the people of Kansas on that portion of the 
constitution submitted to tlie popuhir vote. We 
shall soon know the result, and congressional ac- 
tion in the [iremises will soon be required — assum- 
ing, that is, that the election took place, and that 
no violence, no fraud interfered to prevent it or 
control it. Whatever my views and opinions of 
the question of slavery, the unfortunate subject 
rtf so much sectional controversy, m.iy be, i am 
unwilling that the character of the decision yes- 
terday had in Kansas on that stibject shall pos- 
^bly be supposed to control v,-hatevcr action I 
may hereafter take on the question of admitting 
that Territory into the Union as a State; and 
hence I dtisire now to state the reasons which will 
govern my action. 1 wish to state the reasons in 
advance of any possible knowledge on our part 
<if the character of that decision, that the latter 
may not l)e supposed to color the former. 

My friend, the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. 
DoTJGi.AS,] who opened the debate, intimated a 
somewhat novel opinion yesterday during the dis- 
cussion of this subject, namely: an opinion that 
Uie President had descended from his exalted 
position to devote two columns, more or less, of 
hia annual message, to an assault on him, or at 
least upon his views, reports, and opinions upon 
this Kansas controversy, and further, that any 
allusion, even here by Senators in debate, was an 
attack upon him , premeditated , and part, perhaps. 



of a general design to read him out of the Demo- 
cratic party ! 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Did I say on the part of the 
President? 

Mr. FITCH. Oh, no. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I expressly exempted the 
President from that combination. 

Mr. FITCH. The Senator misunderstood me, 
if he understood me as saying that he charged the 
President with any design to read him out of the 
party. As I shall necessarily refer to the Sena- 
tor's argument, at least in the course of my brief 
remarks, because the honorable Senator has s« 
mixed himself up with Kansas affairs that the latter 
cannot be discussed without reference to him and 
his arguments and positions relative thereto, 1 
wish to advertise him and the Senate in advance, 
that whatever allusion I may make to him, is not 
designed as an attack on him, or as evidence of any 
wantof respect for him. Nor, sir, must it be said 
that I have orassert for myself any right or power 
— not a scintilla— to read him out of the party; nor 
do I know or care where that power is, if it is pos- 
sessed anywhere, because I do not believe in the 
thing. I grant you, sir, that a man may, by his 
own voluntary acts, either by promoting discord 
within a party, or some other equally obnoxious 
course, place himself beyond the pale of party 
org;uiization; but I scarce think the Democratic 
party, as sx^ch, cares sufficiently for persons, b« 
they who they may, to put itself to the trouble of 
reading or resolving them out of its organization. 

The^enator's argument", in his opening speech, 
was based upon the assumption that the Kansas 
act, repealing the Missouri hne, bestowed upon the 
people of the Territories the right — ay, even im- 
posed upon them the necessity of acting in their 
primary capacity on every legitimate subject of 
State legislation, embraced in whatever constitu- 
tion they might send here, as preliminary to ito 
recognition by Congress. The fallacy, the "funda- 
mental error '—I think that is the term — of thia 
position is manifest from the fact that the right 
was not prohibited or questioned by the Missouri 
line, or any other congressional enactment, except 



upon tliesinplo question of slavery. The right was 
claimed, adniitU'd, and luis been cxercisi^d, from 
the organizutioii of our Govurnmoiit, of the peo- 
ple, to act cither en inasic in their primary capa- 
city, or thruugh delegates, as they preferred, upon 
all otiierconstitutional subjects of legislation. The 
repeal of the Missouri line was, therefore, for the 
purpose, and for the purpose only, of placing that 
one exceptional question upon the same footing 
with all others, taking it from its cxcei>tional 
l»osition and ]ilaning it under the rule. This is 
rendered undeniable by the very language of the 
repeal. It proceeds to say: 

" That the Constiliilion, and all laws of ihe United State; 
which aro not locally inapplicahlc, sliall have the san)c Ibrce 
and eli\'oi within the said Territory ol" Kansas as elsewhere 
wiihni the United !?tates, except the cijihtli section of the 
act preparatory to the admission of Mis.^uuri into the Union, 
approved March 6, 1820, which, being ineonsisient with the 
principle of non intervention by Uiiiisress with slavery in 
the Slaves and Territories, as recognized liy the legislation 
of 1850, commonly called the coinproiiiise measures, is 
hereby declared inoperative and void." 

It need not be said at this day that " non-inter- 
vention" has been construed frim the day.sof the 
Nicliolson letter to mean an acknowledgment of 
the right of the people of the Territories to decide 
the question of slavery for themselves, at least 
when they framed their State constitution, and 
to decide it untrammeled by any congressional 
prohibition or interference. Following the com- 
promise of 185U — based upon that comj)romise — 
the Kansas act proposed, its supporters proposed, 
its author proposed, merely to carry out the spirit 
and principles of the compromise by extending 
them to Kansas and future Territories. Non-in- 
tervention, when first iiUroduced as a term in pol- 
itics, was applied solely to the slavery question. 
The compnnnise of IHSO was upon the slavery 
question. The Missouri line was only a restric- 
tion on the suijject of slavery. Its rejjeal in the 
Kansas act was only upon the subject of slavery. 
The whole controversy during the discussion, 
alike on the compromise and the Kansas act, was 
on that subject, and that only. The opponents, 
both of the compromise of 1850 and of the Kan- 
sas act, endeavored to have that one question re- 
tained as an exce))lion to the general rule, which 
underlies our Government, permitting the citizens 
of each State to control their own domestic affairs; 
and they sought to have it thus retained as an 
exceptional one, by endeavoring to induce Con- 
gress to prohibit to the people of the Territories, 
or the States formed from those Territories, any 
control whatever over that ipiestion. 

Now, sir, we find an effort at this time to so 
construe those measures as to make- them apply 
to all subjects of domestic legislation — an effort to 
80 construe them as to make it a condition prece- 
dent to the admission of any new State tluit every 
proposition in its constitution shall have been sub- 
mitted to a i>opular vote after the constitution has 
come from the hands of a regularly organized and 
le'gal convention! This is a construetion incon- 
sistent with the circumstances whieli brought 
those measures into existence. It is a construc- 
tion not contemplated by their su|)porters, among 
whom, as a private citizen, 1 was early included. 
It is a construction scarcely compatible with their 
phraseology. We are said to be a progressive 
people. Is this new reading of these measures an 
evidence only of our general progress, a part only 



of our yearly accruing wisdom .' Or lurks there 
behind it some policy of a personal bearing? 

Mr. President, I doubt not that every gentle- 
man is governed by the most honorable and pa- 
triotic motivae in assuming whatever jiosition he 
may take On this question. I will attribute none 
other to any man. But if there, unfortunately, 
be men, high in the Democratic party, who desire 
to avail themselves of the present phase of this 
I question to take a position out.^ide of that party, 
! with the hope — by throwing fire-brands into its 
' midst, or by directing their artillery against it — to 
[j destroy it, in return for some past grievance, real 
I or fancied, I would commend to such the lessons 
j fairly deducible from the result of every such at- 
|i tempt, from Burr's to Van Buren's. The Dem- 
|l ocratic is the great conservative party of the coun- 
ji try — the only national party. It is the only mere 
]; political link in the chain which now binds the 
;| States in one common country. It is so deemed 
jl throughout the world; so known to its own mem- 
Ij bers; so admitted even by the more candid and 
j conservative of its political opponents; and none 
I of these will hold that man guiltless, who aban- 
ji dons it upon a question having in it so little of 
I j>ractical importance as there is in this, and, by 
' seeking its destruction, thereby admits his not 
! unwillingness that a similar fate should be vi.^^itcd 
Ij on the Union, perhaps, to subserve his selfish 
1 purpose. 

The measures to which I have alluded — the 
compromise of 1850 and the Kansas act — as I have 
I; said, were designed to take one question, pre- 
! viously, in part at least, an c.xcejjtional one, from 
I that position, and apjily to it the same rule always 
': previously applied under our Government to all 
other questions of domi:3tic policy. They were 
IJ designed, in fact, to subjtcl that onequcstion to 
, the same control and the same usages to which 
all others were subjected. They did not contem- 
■ plate either th(> enlargement or diminution of the 
I)owcrs jMX'viously possessed on other questions; 
I neither an expansion nor coniraclion of those 
' powers. They left all other powers in statu quo, 
\\ to be exercised as they previously had been, only 
' placing this one among them. But now we find 
an effort being made to so construe them as to 
make them subversive of the past usages of the 
Government; to make them limit the i)ower pre- 
viously possessed by our people, by compelling 
them to exercise it in one manner, and one only. 
We find an effort now being made, in fact, to so 
construe them as to deny to delegated authority 
the right to form an organic law — a right hitherto 
often exercised. This denial is explicitly mnde 
by Governor Walker in his recent (I am sovry 
to say somewhat egotistical) manifesto; one in 
whicii he sustains his position by quoting from 
himsi'lf only to support it, lie makes this denial 
explicitly. According to his opinion, the consti- 
tutions of more than one half the States of this 
Union, and even the Constitution of the United 
States itself, are uncons'titulional; becauie in the 
case of the former they have been formed by con- 
ventions called by acts of Territorial Legislatures; 
and because in the latter, in common with the 
former, they have become operative without any 
orevious action uj)on them by a popular vote. 
Most fortunately for us, his opinion is not the 
paramount law of the land; otherwise, a majority 
of the most populous and wealthy States of the 



Union would be resolved at once into a territorial 
condition, and even the Old Thirteen would be 
compelled to fall back either upon their original 
articles of confederation or their colonial charters. 

It was not, to my knowledge, intimated by any 
person anywhere, during the discussion of tiie 
Kansas bill, that it was the intention to construe 
that bill, as is now declared, so as to initiate an 
innovation into the past usage of our Govern- 
ment, by requiring the submission of every dis- 
tinct proposition in a new State constitution to 
the popular vote after such constitution has been 
legally framed by an authorized convention, as a 
necessary condition precedent to the recognition 
of that constitution here. The Missouri line was 
a restriction upon the right of self-government, 
upon the doctrine of popular sovereignty, inas- 
much as it denied to the people north of that line 
any control whatever over the question of slavery. 
The Kansas act repealed that line, and therefore 
annulled the denial, placing that question in the 
same category with others of a domestic charac- 
ter, subject to the same popular will, leaving that 
will to be exercised as before, in whatever manner 
it chose, cither through delegates or by a direct 
vote. 

The recognition of popular sovereignty by the 
repeal of the Missouri line, consisted in the fact 
that it placed the question of slavery where all 
others previously wore. It did not provide, nor 
did it contemplate, nor did its supporters imagine, 
nor did its author intimate, that it contemplated 
the submission of every bank proposition, every 
internal improvement/o-oje/, every school system, 
every election qualification in a new constitution, 
to the people, before the people by and for whom 
it was formed should be admitted into the Union. 
Any attcmjit at that time to so shape its language as 
to place that construction on it, would have been 
resisted — I can venture, for the truth of this asser- 
tion, to appeal to those about me who acted with 
its author at the time of its introduction — not only 
as an uncalled-for and unnecessary innovation 
upon the past usage of the Government, but as in 
conflict with that very popular sovereignly which 
its author then so ably advocated, and for which 
he now declaims, by denying to the ])cople their 
right to delegate their power and authority. 

If the constitution of Kansas comes here, as 
we are told it will, without previous submission 
to the popular vote, I shall regret the fact as much 
as any gentleman on this floor, or any citizen 
throughout the Republic; but yet, if it comes here 
undersuch circumstances, it will not be an isolated 
eitception to a general rule. Whence this new- 
born anxiety as to the manner in which that 
particular constitution shall come before Con- 
gress? The rule, on the contrary, has been quite 
the reverse; for, as the Senator from Missouri 
[Mr. Green] so ably told us, a few days since, 
a majority of the new States, Indiana, Ohio, and t 
Illinois, included, have been admitted with con- j 
stitutions which had not previously received the 
popular sanction, and no complaint followed, 
either from the States or Congress. Such man- 
ner of submission has heretofore met the sanction i 
of the Senator from Illinois himself. I do not! 
make this allusion to convict him of inconsist- : 
ency, because I know not and care not whether 
he has been inconsistent or not. As he well said , 
yesterday, it has no bearing whatever on this ; 



question; and if attempts to convict each other 
of inconsistencies are to constitute the staple ar- 
gument on this question, I fancy very few of ub 
will escape unscathed. This manner of submis- 
sion has before met his sanction, both positive 
and implied; positive, in his having voted for the 
admission of States with constitutions similarly 
formed and similarly presented; implied, in his 
having, jointly with others, framed a jiennissory 
act for Kansas, without providing for the sub- 
mission of the constitution it contemplated to the 
people, before that constitution tame here. If 
that permissory act had passed both branches of 
Congress, and become a law, the result would 
have been precisely wliat it now is. 

Emanating as it did, from a Democratic source 
— the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] and 
the Senator from Illinois — it met the unqualified 
opposition of the opposite, or Republican party. 
That opposition would have been manifested in 
Kansas precisely as has their opposition to every 
other proposition not emanating from the Topeka 
faction, precisely as has their opposition to the ter- 
ritorial law calling a convention, namely, by their 
refusal to vote at the election of delegates to a con- 
vention. Such has been the policy and course of the 
Topeka faction within Kansas, and their abettors 
and sympathizers without. They have constantly 
refused to recognize any law in Kansas, except it 
was the work of the self-constituted law-makers 
of their own faction. They have refused to obey 
any law there, or hold it worthy of obedience, 
except the will of that faction. Their refusal to 
vote at the election of delegates, under the con- 
gressional permissory act, would have resulted 
precisely as has their refusal to vote under the 
territorial act. The same kind of constitution 
would have been formed and presented here in 
the same manner, without previous submission. 
The manner then would have been chargeable to 
Congress, especially the Democratic portion, and 
particularly the authors of the bill. Now it is 
chargeable to the people of the Territory, through 
their Territorial Legislature, and chargeable in 
the present case, as it would have been in the 
former, because of the omission to provide for its 
submission. If the present constitution had come 
here under the congressional permissory act, as it 
would if that act had passed, in all probability, it 
is scarcely to be believed that it would have met 
the same reception it has now, from the same 
source — that a demand would have been made by 
the Senator from Illinois that it should previously 
be submitted to the people; that he would have 
been as prompt to condemn his own work as ha 
now is that of others. 

It is objected to this constitution that it was 
formed by a convention called into existence by 
a Territorial Legislature — a body, which those 
making the obj(!ction believe not possessed of 
the right or authority to make the call. In my 
estimation, this objection might have been well 
taken in the earlier days of the Republic, but it is 
too late to take it now, after the oft-repeated rec- 
ognition of this right by admitting new States, 
whose constitutions have been similarly t'ramed 
and presented. Usage, it need not be said, be- 
comes, in legislative matters, law. Moreover, the 
Kansas organic act itself refutes this objection, 
giving, as it does, to the people of that Territory, 
the right to " form and regulate their domestic in- 



6 



Btitulionsin thcirown wny." Then, if they Imd of those risrhts by a majoritv- While the right 
not |ircvioiisIy tlic right lo cnll n convention by ''of tlie majority to rule is clearly recognized, it 
and tliroiii,'li the Tcrriiorinl Le£;i.sl;iiure,eitlier as ;| must ruli; in a ic^al manner. If a majority re- 



ivjcissary incident to tlic right lo act through 
delegates or representatives, or as bestowed on 
them i)y tlie past usage of the Government in 



solve itself into a mob, and will neither vote nor 
observe law or order, the minority who are law- 
abiding, wiio form and obey government, cannot 



idniilling many States with conslilulions framed i be deprived of the benefits and protection of that 
by conventions tiuis called into existence, that J government by such majority. Is mobocracy to 
act e.xplicitly gives them tlie right. ' be substituted Air democracy ? The denial, by the 

The case of Arkansas has been cited liere. It I Topeka faction, of the legality of the Territorial 
has very little bearing on this. No Kansas act, | Legislature is a part of their plan to subserve a 
no organic law, permitting the people of Arkansas \' particular purpose. They design thereby to force 
to " form and regulate their domestic institutions L upon Congress a retrospective recognition of the 
in theirown way" wasenacted for that Territory. ' Topeka constitution, with the officials created 

Conscious liiat this objection has really little under its pretended adoption. Hence their pro- 
valid foundation, some of those making it resort to 'claimed determination to receive no constitution, 
anotiier, namely, that the Territorial Legislature, ji not even that framed at Topeka, from the liands 
which called thisconvention was,in theirparlance, ^ of the lato convention. Its acceptance now would 
a " bogus" one, an illegal oni;, and that, being }; imply the necessity of a future election, and the 
illegal, neither the convention it formed, nor the |i Robinsons and Lanes, and their sympathizers 
constitution framed by that convention, can be here, are apprehensive they might not be as suc- 
legal. The Senator from Illinois (and I really feel i! cessful at those elections as they were at such 
myself under the necessity of begging his pardon, ij as were ordered and controlled by themselves. 



and that of the Senate, for such frequent reference 
to iiim; but it is unavoidable, as I have said, 
because of his previous connection with Kansas 
matters, and because liis argument has been the 
only one in the Senate on that side of the case, in 
opposition lo my views) — the Senator from Illi- 
nois does not agree with those who affirm the first 
of these propositions; in other words, he asserts 
the legality of the Territorial Legislature of Kan- 
sas, but he is understood to concur with the 
Topeka men in affirming the two hitter. 

Now, sir, Congress (the Senator from Illinois 
included) having repeatedly acknowledged the 
legality of the Territorial Legislature, it is very 
difficult to perceive by what process of special 
pleading we are to avoid acknowledging the legal 



Therefore they demand the recognition, and of 
course the legalization of the Topeka constitution 
of the ]Kist, with all its attendant anarchy, all its 
attendant defiance of llie legal territorial and con- 
stitutional authorities, and indeed with all its fac- 
tious treason. In furtherance of this demand they 
take exceptions to certain portions of the present 
constitution other than the slavery clause. To that 
they do not deem it advisable to object, because 
being sulimitted to the popular vote, they know 
that it will be expected of them by the world out- 
side of that Territory, if they have the majority 
they claim, that they show their majority by 
rejecting that clause. 

A comparison of the features to which they 
objpcl in the Lecnmiiton constitution, with sim- 



ily of its acts if thev do not conflict with the !| ilar ones in that of Topeka, which they profess to 
Constitution of the llnited States or the Kansas j have adopted, is favorable to the former, showing 
organic act. That many, and perhaps a inajority i! that their olijections are merely factious. Among 



of the citizens of Kansas, did not vote either at 
the election of representatives to the Territorial 
Legislature, or delegates to the convention, mny 
be true. Where is your remedy? You cannot 
compel men to vote. They can only be permitted 
and invited to do so. If a part in any given com- 
munity, in order to subserve some particular po 



these objections is, that twenty years' citizenship 
is required as a qualification for Governor. Their 
own — the Topeka constitution — permits a semi- 
barbarous Indian to be Governor! There is a 
bank clause in both; and if there be any choice 
where, as in matters of banks, all is evil, thai 
choice is clearly in favor of ilie Lecompton instru- 



litical purpose, to su)iply pabulum, it may be, for ; ment, because the bank for which that provides 
some political party, to promote the purposes of II cannot go into operation without the previous 
some |)artisan kader, neglect or nject the invita-'j assent of the people. Both contain a clause pro- 
tion, and will not vote, is the machinery of Gov- ' hibiting amendment forn certain number of years 
ernment hence to slop, and society to resolve !l in the future. I grant you it is a dead letter in 
it.scif into anarchy ? Heeause some political party ;| both, because the peoide will amend or change 
or, pirhaps, a sufficiency of them to change a i their constitution in their own good time. In the 
majority, will not vote, are those who will do so | Topeka instrument this prohibition extends to 
to be deprived of any government .' Permit such |l 1S65. The conduct of that Topeka faction, their 
an absurdity, and you dejirive New York of any j! resistance to le^al territorial and national au- 
Slate government during the period for which its |' ihority, their incipient rebellion, are yet loo fresh 
officer.s were recently elected. Admit such an i| in the minds of our people to permit a direct 
absurdity, and you enable any faction to over- jiroposition to be seriously entertained for one 
turn your Govemnienl by keeping away from the moment, to legalize their acts; yet we are called 
poll.s, especially if they can substantiate a prob- upon to do so indirectly; we are called upon to 
abiliiy that the majorityand the laws would have | truckle lo this treasonable faction, to humbly ask 
been dilTennt if tliey had voted. I| it whcthcrlhis orsomc otherconstitulion will best 

Our CJovernment is one of checks and balances; !| subserve its purposes. We are asked lo ignore 
and some of its check.s apply even lo the people;; the existence of any law-abiding citizens in Kan- 
thcmselves. Among the objects of our Govern- 1| sas to place such men in power and position. 
ment, one ia to protect the legal rights of the [I The compromi.'^e of l!^.')() and the Kansas act of 
minority against an illegal assumption or denial U 1854 based upon it; both recognize in the people 



of the Territories the same rio;ht and power pos- 
sessed by the people of the States, namely: the 
right and power to govern themselves, subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States and 
the laws necessary to enforce it. The recognition 
of this right and power has resulted, in all exce|U 
two of our present Territories, in the formation 
of a legal and orderly government of the character 
contemplated. The two exceptions are Utah and 
Kansas. In the former, usurpation, defiance of 
and opposition to the constitutional authorities of 
ihe country have resulted; in the latter, anarchy 
and faction, and a determination to yield obedience 
to no law except the offspring of faction. The 
remedy in the former case is a plain one — it is 
force. In the latter the only remedy must be the 
recognition of the acts of such law-abiding citi- 
zens as have evinced a v/illingness to be governed 
and to govern themselves by yielding obedience 
to a constitutional and legal government. The in- 
terests, the welfare, indeed 1 may say the safety, 
not only of the neighboring States and Territo- 
ries, but of the entire Confederacy, demand that 
tJiis Kansas controversy, a local one, should be 
localized; that it should no longer be permitted to 
form an irritating clement of national politics, dis- 
turbing the peace and endangering the unity of 
our Government, but should be limited to Kansas. 
The experience of the past, and indeed of this 
moment, clearly shows that this can only be done 
by admitting Kansas as a State. The people of 
Kansas have no right to demand or expect the en- 
tire country to be continually agitated, its pros- 
perity interrupted, its unity endangered, because 
they will not reconcile their contemptible feuds — 
will not settle their factious quarrels. When ad- 
mitted as a State, then, and then only, its people 
will, as they must, govern themselves. Then 
faction in Kansas will have no apology for call- 
ing on its abetors and sympathizers without, or 
upon Congress. Then no power outside of itself 
will have any pretext for interfering with its do- 
mestic feuds. Then, if one constitution be not 
pleasing to a majority of its inhabitants, itcan be 
amended, or another substituted whenever that 
majority so will, even if it be within a few days. 
With all deference to those, especially from 
my own section, who differ with me on this sub- 
ject, I see no course for Congress to adopt in the 
present emergency but to admit Kansas with 
whatever constitution it may present here — ns- 
euming always that the election of yesterday was 
not fraudulent, and was not interrupted by force 
— after first satisfying ourselves as to the consti- 
tutional requirement, is it republican in form.'' 
and next, did it emanate from a legal source .' was 
it formed in a legal manner.' These are the only 
questions, in my judgment, that we have any 
warrant for asking. It is not for us to inquire 
how many votes were cast at the election of del- 
(jgates to the convention. It is not for us to ask 
whether .some portion or all of it was submitted 
to the popular vote, unless indeed, as in the case 
of the constitution of Wisconsin, the instrument 
provid(;d for its own submission; or unless, as in 
the case of Minnesota, a previous act of Con- 
gress required such submission. In all other 
than these two exceptional cases, such questions 
ure for the decision of the people alone. If they 
choose to enact a law through their Territorial 
Legislature, calling a constitutional convention, 



in the absence of any congressional law on the sub- 
ject, they have a right to do so. If in enacting such 
law they choose to permit or provide fora submis- 
sion of the entire constitution, or only a part of it 
to a popular vote, or to have all of it withheld 
from such submission, they have a right to do 
either. They possess the right under tlieir organic 
law permitting them to form and regulate their 
institutions in their own way," and they possess 
it generally under our recognized doctrine of non- 
intervention, or popular sovereignty. If any do- 
mestic differences occur between themselves and 
their servants, their representatives or delegates, 
the same doctrine of non-intervention prohibits 
us from interfering. Their domestic differences, 
like their "domestic institutions," must be settled 
by them in " their own way," so that the way 
be legal. If a portion of the citizens choose to 
refrain from voting, either for representatives to 
their Legislature, or for delegates to their con- 
vention, or for or against whatever portion of 
their constitution may be submitted, we have no 
remedy. We cannot force them to vote. Those 
who abstain from voting, whether they abstain 
merely as peaceable citizens or for factious pur- 
poses, as has been the case with a va.sl number 
in Kansas, permit others to vote for them, and 
if the decision at the ballot box be adverse to 
their views they permit that decision to be talcen 
by default. Congress, acting under llie Consti- 
tution, and the doctrine of popular sovereignty, 
recognizes their right to vote and their right " to 
form and regulate their domestic institutions in 
th.eir own way;" but it is for them, and them 
alone to say to what extent they will exercise the 
right of voting, in what manner they will exer- 
cise it, or whether they v/ill exercise it at all. It 
is not for Congress to prescribe the manner and 
extent, or to dictate a particular way, in which 
they shall form their " domestic institutions," 
whether immediately through the ballot box, en 
masFc, or by delegating authority to act for them. 
If they present a constitution here, republican in 
form, emanating from legal authority, formed in 
a legal manner, it is not for us to require that a 
certain number of votes shall have been cast at 
the election of the delegates who framed it; it is 
not for us to require that a portion of it, or all of 
it, shall have been submitted to a popular vote, 
unless such submission be required by the instru- 
ment itself or by a previous act of Congress; it is 
not for us to require that it shall contain a bank 
clause or an anti-bank clause, a slavery clause or 
an anti-slavery clause. These are all questions 
for the decision of the party directly interested — 
the people of Kansas. If these or similar require- 
•ments arc adhered to, and the constitution re- 
turned because it does not fulfill them, such action 
on our part will be a denial of popular sover- 
eignty, a denial of their right to regulate their 
domestic institutions in their own way, and a 
demand that they shall form and regulate them 
in that way, whatever it may be, prescribed for 
them and dictated to them by Congress. It would 
be, in fiict, direct intervention with their domes- 
tic institutions, their internal affairs. 

I should have greatly preferred, especially in 
the present state of feeling in Kansas and through- 
out the country, that the entire constitution had 
been submitted to the people. It would have bcen„ 
if the people would have exercised the right guar- 



8 



nnlied to tliem. The fault is their own, not ours. 
We cannot go behind their own Ir^nl actions — 
recog^nized as ioiral heretofore by Congress and 
the Executive. We are bound*by that action in 
my estimation. 1 say I sliould iiave greatly pre- 
ferred that the entire instrument had been submit- 
ted to the people; but, notwithstandin.^ this pref- 
fjrence, the legal right of the convention, urider 
the law which called it into existence, to withhold 
(he constitution in part or altogether from submis- 
ston, is to my mind unquestionable. The con- 
Tention is responsible to the people of Kansas 
alone for the exercise of that right. 

We are told that if we recognize the present con- 
stitution, ditKculties will ensue. I believe it; and 
«o they will if we reject it. Indeed, I have heard 
of nopropositionconnccted withthi.s matterwhich 
has not its attendant difficulties. My own sincere 
desire is to liave that course adopted which will 
be productive of the least evil to the greatest num- 
ber. Without committing myself for or against 
any other proposition which may come up, and 
wliich may be rendered necessary perhaps by 
some exigency — either a failure to hold an election 
yesterday, or a forcible prevention of an election, 
or interference with it — 1 shall only select at pres- 
ent between the two which are likely from the 
present state of facts to come before us. One of 
these is to recognize this constitution ; the other, to 
reject it. 

The first of these propositions is recommended 
by the President, the chief Executive otlicer of 
the nation; the man but recently elected by an 
overwhelming majority to preside over its desti- j 
nies for four years; an old man, almost three score 
and ten; one who has devoted the greater portion 
of his long life to thi! service of his country, and 
has been placed in almost every position in the gift 
of its citizens, and discharged the duties of all to : 
their satisfaction; one who has no political future, 
noschemes of personal ambition to subserve, who 
is no candidate for a future nomination, but will ; 
retire from the position he now holds with far more , 
pleasure than he entered upon its duties, desiring 
only to leave behind him a fair fame and name, ; 
and to so administer tiie Government as will best 
promote its power, its honor, and its prosperity. 
The otlier of these two propositions is supjiorted 
by the Senator from Illinois. Ihonorhim. I have 
ever admiri d him; yet, in some respects, he is the 
antipodes of the President. Young, of a brilliant 
intellect, of which all iiis counlrymcn might well 
be proud, but ambitious, and a candidate past, 
and perhaps future. I do not speak this in any f 
disparagement of him, for ambition, divested of 
Belt — a desire to hold place without any selfish 
motive inciting it; a di'sire to hold place merely ^ 
to leave the impress of his policy on the Govern- ' 
ment of his country iind to enhance the pros- 1 
perity of its people — is an honorable feeling. j 

In justification for his so ill-timed hurrying this 
debate upon the Senate, and upon the country, ' 
the Senator from Illinois told us that the Presi- 
dent, in his message, had assailed liirn and his 
previous course. Ileiutimaied further, thatevery 
allusion to him here, in debate upon the affairs of ■ 
Kansas, was designed as a continuation of the 
attack, and that there was some person, or some ! 
power, using a suborned press and suborned let- 
tor-writers, to likewise assail him. In all this, he 
sees more of himself than others do — fancies him- ' 



self the object of actions which have little reference 
to him, and with which little thought of him was 
associated. He did not name or locate thi.-j per- 
son, or this power, thus suborning the press, leav- 
ing full play for our imaginations. It maybe sorrto 
tangible person; it may be some myth, some fog, 
some sliadowy nothing, existing only in his im- 
agination; or it may be that this one of his allega- 
tions grew out of a recollection of a similar charge 
once brought against himself — a charge to which 
he then very promptly and properly took excep- 
tion, as I do to this general charge of liis againsi 
a somebody who is not designated. He was once 
charged — and it was not in a .subdued whisper, 
but trumpet-toned and hundred-tongued — with 
at least no unwillingness, that a public journal, 
thought to be controlled by him, and claiming to 
be the mouth-piece of the national Democracy, 
should throw overboard iVIr. Buchanan, General 
Cass, and other fathers of the party, as " oUl 
fogies." 

1 have thus, sir, briefly stated the qualities of 
the two gentlemen who recommended these oppo- 
site propositions. I have the most profound re- 
spect for them both. Locality, every considera- 
tion of self, if such could enter into my motive* 
of action in this matter, would induce me to go 
with the Senator from Illinois. We are geograph- 
ically neighbors. I may almost say that his people 
and my people are one. He has, perhaps, mors 
influence among my people than 1 have myself. 
These considerations, however, liave nothing- 
whatever to do with my course, or my opinion 
on this question. Between these two counselors, 
thus recommending opposite propositions, I have 
no hesitation as to whose advice to follow. Of 
the two propositions, I look upon the one to re- 
ject this constitution as far the most mischievous, 
because it will prolong this controversy as an 
element of that dangerous sectional agitation, 
which threatens, and has threatened, the unity of 
the Republic. Between the two, assuming that 
one or the other must be acted on here, my choic« 
will unhesitatingly be fen- the former. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask pardon 
of the Senator from Michigan for occupying a 
Cgw moments of the time properly belonging to 
him. I regret that, as the Senator from Indiana 
spoke by the courtesy of the Senator from Mich- 
igan, he should have deemed it necessary to say 
anything that demanded a reply from me at th« 
expense of the Senator who is entitled to the floor. 
I understand the Senator's argument to rest upon 
the proposition, which he argues at some length, 
that the object, the only object, of that portion 
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill which repealed llw 
Missouri restriction, was to place the slavery 
question on the same footing with each and every 
other local and domestic question, as had been 
done from the b(>ginning of the Government. I 
do not misunderstand him on that point. 

Mr. FITCH. No, sir. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to find that on the 
very basis of his argument he and I agree. It 
was the object of repealing the Missouri compro- 
mise, to put the slavery question on the same fool- 
ing with each and every other domestic question 
in the Territories and new States: that is, to leave 
the people perfi>ctly free to form and regulate aJl 
their domestic institutions, slavery included, to 
suit themselves. On this point, however, he dif- 



9 



fers with tlic President of the United States; for 
tlie President tells us that the object was to make 
slavery an excej^^ion and submit that by itself, 
but not submit the other questions. 

I was sorry to see the Senator taking issue with 
the President of the United States upon a ques- 
tion of that kind, and, at the same time, arraie^n- 
ing me for having done the same thinjSf. The 
whole head and front of my offending consists in 
the fact, that I dissented from that part of the 
President's message which declared that the sla- 
very question was an exception, and argued to 
prove that tlie object of the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
was to exclude that exception and put the slavery 
question on the same footing with every other 
question which was local and not national. State 
and not Federal. The Senator from Indiana now 
agrees with me that the President was wrong in 
tJiat part of his message, and that I was right. 
There is no avoiding this conclusion. He re- 
peated the proposition a dozen times in the course 
of his speech. I am glad to find that he and I 
agree thus far. I hope he will not consider that 
he is outside the pale of a healthy organization; 
that he is abandoning the President, and engaging 
in an ambitious scheme to break down the Ad- 
ministration, because he difters with the Pres- 
ident on the same point that I do. 

He says I have come out in favor of a general 
rule, novel in the history of the Government, that, 
hereafter, every constitution formed by a new 
State coming into the Union must be submitted 
to the people before it is sent here. The Senator 
argues against the general rule as being a novel 
and revolutionary principle, which ought not to be 
fastened on the country at this day. Has he read 
the President's message on that point.' In the 
message, the President of the United States tells 
us that the example of the Minnesota bill, in re- 
quiring the constitution to be submitted to the 
peo]:»le, is a noble example; and should be fol- 
lowed in all cases hereafter to arise. The Sen- 
ator is arraigning the general rule of the President 
in regard to the submission of constitutions to the 
people for ratification. I stand with the President 
in behalf of that general rule. 

I am a little at a loss to see upon what ground 
it is that the Senator utters vague inuendocs about 
men putting themselves in a factious position 
towards the party, dividing and distracting its 
councils to such an extent that they ought to 
be considered outside of the party. He dilfers 
with the President on two points: I on one. The 
President says the slavery question is treated by 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill as an exception. The 
Senator says that by that bill, and by the Cincin- 
nati platform, the slavery question is put on the 
same footing with all other questions, without any 
exception. On that i)oint,as I have said, the Sen- 
ator from Indiana and myself agree, both dif- 
fering from the President. He differs from the 
President in regard to the general rule that the 
constitution ought to be submitted to the people. 
On that point I agree with the President. If to 
differ from the President is faction, then the Sen- 
ator has just double the amount of faction in his 
position that I have in mine. 

Then what is the issue between the Senator 
from Indiana and myself.-' Agreeing that the 
object of the Kansae-Nebraska bill was to place 
the slavery question on an equal footing with all 



other local and domestic institutions, and leave 
the people free to decide the whole, he takes the 
ground that he will not submit those questions to 
the people, and 1 take the ground that they should 
be submitted to the people. That is the simple 
point of difference. On that point the reasoning 
of the President is with me, for he says, that by 
the terms of the Nebraska bill, it was incumbent 
upon the Di'mocratic party to insist that the 
slavery question should l)c submitted to the people 
for their decision; and if the Senator from Indiana 
bo right in saying that by the Nebraska bill the 
slavery question was put on the same footing 
with all others, then if he agrees with the Presi- 
dent, he affirms that the whole constitution should 
be submitted to the people for their ratification. 

Thus we find the gentleman in conflict with the 
President of the United States at all points, and 
in conflict with the President upon the very rec- 
ommendations he makes in regard to the Terri- 
tories which are about to become States, to wit: 
the general rule of submission. The Senator from 
Indiana will not claim, like the Senator from Penn- 
sylvania, that he has "other sources of informa- 
tion" than the message. He will not claim that 
there are scmrces of information which authorize 
him to deny the propositions laid down in the 
message. If he will, 1 should like to know who 
is the friend, and who ia the enemy, of the Pres- 
ident of the United States? 

The Senator from Indiana cannot maintain his 
position without rebelling against a large portion 
of the message on the Kansas question. But I 
hold that he has a right to differ from the Presi- 
dent. God forbid that I should ever surrender 
my right to dift'er from a President of the United 
States of my own choice ! I have not become the 
mere servile tool of any President, so that I am 
bound to take every recommendation he makes, 
without examining and ascertaining whether it 
meets the approval of my judgment or not. I 
know that the President would not respect me if 
I should thus receive a dictuvi from any author- 
ity contrary to my judgment. 

Again, yesterday, I tried to ascertain if there 
was any one Senator on this floor who was pre- 
pared to yield obedience to the President's rec- 
ommendations in his message, without exception. 
I instanced the Pacific railroad, the bankru))t law, 
the tariff", and many other questions, and I could 
notget a response from any one man who indorses 
the whole, or i.s prepared to carry it out. All 
other men are permitted to dissent but me! It is 
factious in me to dissent ! If I dissent, it disturbs 
the harmony of the Democratic parly ! I tell the 
Senator that if he will stand faithful by the Cin- 
cinnati platform, which allirmid the right of the 
people to decide all their local and domestic insti- 
tutions for themselves, there will be harmony 
between him and me; and if each member of the 
party will stand by that platform, there will be 
harmony in the whole party. Why not stand 
there? Oh, it is factious! it is intimated, not 
charged, that there is something fearful, some- 
thing terrible in this thing of a man daring to be 
true and faithful to his principles, when other meu 
do not desire that he should be. 

Allusions are made to men whose names are 
known— to Burr and Van Hnren— as if they came 
from sources that would read me out of the Dem- 
ocratic party. 1 should like those who are ar- 



10 



roigcnin.? my course licro, to compare records wilh 
mc ill my devoiion and .service to llic party fur 
llic fourteen yfui'« ll'at I liave been in Congress. 
The assumpiiiin i.s, that I will not bow the knee 
to power, Nvli('n lliat power itself does not rocom- 
mend it, and the insinuation is that I am factious. 
Sir, call it faction; call it what you please; I intend 
to stand by the iSebraska bill, by tlie Cincinnati 
platform, by thi- orsjanization and principles of 
iJie parly; and 1 defy opposition from whatever 
quarter it conies. 

I predict that sixty days shall not go over my 
head liefore I shall be in harmony with those who 
.ire now most relied upon to crush me and the 
principle of the Nebraska bill, by the adniis.sion of 
the Lecompton constitution. I shall be mistaken 
if, in sixty days, you come here unanimously 
demandinj;: tlie indorsement of the Lecompton 
constitution, as a test of faith. The pro-slavery 
clause stricken out may make popular sovereignty 
look very dilTerent in genth-men's eyes from what 
it would if it were in. Tiie pro-slavery clause 
in, with the exception of tlie Senator from Indi- 
ana, the merits of that convention may look very 
differently to some gentlemen from what they 
would if it were out. With mc it can make no 
difference. I regard the result of that convention 
as a trick, a fraud upon the rights of the people, 
and come with slavery or without slavery, I am 
opposed to the whole of it. 

Rut we are told we must force the Lecompton 
constitution down the throats of tlic jieople for 
the sake of peace; for the sake of localizing the 
quarrel. How is that to be done.' By ])assing 
on act of Congress forcing a constitution on the 
people of Kansas against the will of that people 
What next.' When you find the stubborn, fac- 
tious majority resisting the government that you 
havciniposud on them, thePresident will be called 
upon to use the Army and the Kavy to put down 
insurrection; and inasmuch as this Lecompton 
faction is only composed of perhaps one tenth or 
one twentieth of the whole people, and there is 
not a man of them wiio dares slay there a day 
without the United States army to protect him, 
wc should have a special message from the Pres- 
ident recommending an increase of the Army, and 
the calling out of volunteers to march to Ivansas 
to put down the insurrection, and maintain the 
government which you force on them ut the point 
of the bayonet. That is the mode in which you 
are going to localize the Kansas quarrel — by call- 
ing troops from Virginia and from Wisconsin, 
from Illinois and from South Carolina, from Mas- 
•achusetts and from Mississippi, and stationing 
tiiosc volunteers around the city of LecumiHon to 
protect the Govi'rnor whom you impose upon that 
people against their will ! Tiien I suppose there 
will be perfect peace and harmony among them 
all. You will restore jieacc in ihat way, and 
localize the Kansas difficulty! No, sir. The 
moment you impose a constitution on ihat people 
against their remonstrance and protest, you iiave 
nationalized ihisdifficulty.and pledged yourselves 
to maintain that government at the point of the 
bayonet, and with all the power at your com- 
mand. Vou have legalized civil war instead of 
localizing the Kansas quarrel. These are my 
convictions. I believe tlial sui-h will be the con- 
sequences, if we proceed in this mad career of 
forcing a constituiion on a people against their 



will. I hope I may be mistaken, and that such 
consequences will not result; but, wliile such aro 
my convictions, 1 must be perMilied to exfiresi 
them. If my doing so brings uowii assaults on 
me, from whatever quarter, high or low, from my 
own section or an opjiositc section, I must repel 
those assaults; but I tlo not choose to go into any 
crimination or recrimination in regard to consist- 
ency on former phases of this question. I am 
willing that my consistency shall be judged of 
by the public. I think my course is pretty well 
known, and I am willing that the people shall 
judge of it. If the course of the Senator from 
Indiana is equally well known, let the penpU 
judge of it by that knowledge. If it is not as 
well known, I have no desire, no disposition, to 
hunt up old speeches and old records and old let- 
ters to show liis inconsistency. Consistency has 
very little to do wilh this question. The greal 
point is, is it right to force a constitution upon a 
people against their will.' Am I not right in my 
opposition to that act of power and oppression? 
I would rather argue that question than go into 
any controversies with political friends or even 
political opponents. I would prefer that they 
should consider mc so humble an individual thai 
my history of fifteen years is not necessary to be 
discussed, inasmuch as during the whole fit'teen 
years, I have found them loud in ])raise of my 
course as to the political iniquities which they 
now propose to bring in judgment against me. 

But, sir, I ask no mercy in relation to this mat- 
ter. I will not provoke controversy wilh any- 
body. I shall not shrink from the avowal of my 
opinions and the vindication of my character 
whenever I choose to do it. I may not reply to 
all. It may be an object to worry out my strength 
by these constant attacks from day today. When- 
ever I find it failing I will reserve myself, and 
then come back and take a raking fire at the whole 
group. [Laughter.] But whenever I shall feel 
inclined I will repel the blow at the lime it is 
struck. 

Mr. FITCH. Mr. President 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Scnatorfrom 
Michigan is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. FITCH. I should not ask the indulgence 
of the Senator from Michigan, but for the fact 
that the Senator from Illinois, for reasons best 
known to himself,attributed to me language which 
I did not utter, and sentiments which I liavc not 
expressed or entertained. I must, therefore, ap- 
peal to the courtesy of the Senator from Michigan 
to allow me to answer. 

Mr. STUART. Inasmuch as I commenced the 
day by acts of courtesy, it would hardly be grace- 
ful now for me to refuse to extend the courtesy. 
1 yield to the Senator. 

Mr. FITCH. At first, the Senator from Illi- 
nois assumed that his own and my argument were 
based on the same idea — the idea that the slavery 
question, from being an exceptional one, was, by 
the compromises of 1^50 and by the Kansas bill, 
placed under the gemral rule, and subjected U) 
the po|)ular will, in precisely the same manner 
with other domestic questions. Whatever his 
views now may be, he did not express that view 
in his (q)cning speech. Here it is, in the pamph- 
let form, as ordered by the Senator: 

" Now, nir, wliiu was the principle nniinciiited by the 
authors aud bupportcrs uf tliut bill, when it was brought Sot- 



11 



ward ? Did wo not come before the country, and say that 
wi- repealed the MLssouri restriction for the purpose of sub- 
ititutingnnd carryins out, as a peneral rule, the great prin- 
(JphMifsi'lf ffovernnient, which left the people of each State 
and each Territory free to form and regulate Iheir domestic 
institutions in tlieir own way?" 

•' Repealed the Missouri restriction for the pur- 
pose of substituting" a something else — a new 
•* general rule;" self-government in lieu of the 
rule of government previously rnforced. Why, 
sir, that paragraph implies that the Senator from 
Illinois wrested the right of self-government from 
some tyranny, and bestowed it on the people; that 
he gave them a " general rule" — a power which 
tJieydid not previously possess. Now he claims 
merely to have taken one question from an ex- 
ceptional position and placed it undera "general 
rule" previously in force. I grant that, subse- 
quently, in the course of his remarks, he spoke 
of the slavery question as an exceptional one, 
■which his Kansas bill proposed to place upon the 
same footing v/ith tlie other domestic questions; 
but not so in the opening remarks of his speech 
— its foundation. He tells ine, I differ with the 
President. I stop not to ask whether I differ with 
him or the Senator from Illinois. Neither the 
President nor any other gentleman is responsible 
for my course, but myself. 1 would differ v.'ith 
tlie one as soon as with the other, if I thought 
his reasoning, or the conclusions at which he ar- 
rived, were not correct. I do not read the mes- 
sage as the Senator from Illinois reads it, and his 
reading is not justified by its language. I nowhere 
find the President saying that tlie slavery ques- 
tion was made an exceptional one by the Kansas 
bill. He says, in substance, that it was the prom- 
inent question, the one which had been disciRsed, 
the one which had been agitated; and, therefore, 
Uiat it was highly proper that it should be sub- 
mitted to llie people as a distinct proposition. 
The Senator from Illinois asserted— not in terms, 
but that v/as the purport — that I denied the pro- 
priety of submitting a State constitution — inclu- 
ding that of Kansas — to the people. I distinctly 
n.sserted my regret that it was not thus submitted; 
but declared that, in my opinion, we had no right 
to go behind the authority we had recognized as 
legal, and demand its submission, when that au- 
thority had omitted to demand it. The Senator 
from Illinois mustconfine himself to the record — 
to what I have said — when he pretends to quote 
me or my sentiments. 

The Senator asks me, as he asked the Senator 
from Pennsylvania yesterday, why these innu- 
endoes about faction and a division of the party. 
He was tlie first Senator to introduce here what 
lie calls innuendoesand intimations upon thatsub- 
ject. He was the first to allude to any possible 
division of the party; the first to allude to any 
faction in connection with this question. 1 merely 
answered his allusion, and am not to be taken to 
task for it. 

I did not quote the message, as he says. I 
scarcely made allusion to it, except as to the con- 
dusions at which the President arrived. Has the 
8enatorno otherdefense than attributing language 
to me I did not utter — attributing sentiments to 
me I did not express? He says he agrees with 
the President in some jioints, and differs with him 
on others; and that I disagree with him on some, 
and coincide with him in others. The difference 
between the Senator and myself is simply this: 



he denies the President's conclusion, but pretends 
to coincide with him in liis reasoning; while I 
concur Ijoth in his reasoning and conclusion. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. What conclusion do yoa 
refer to ? 

! Mr. FITCH. The conclusion that the consti- 
tution of Kansas, ifitcomcs before us, as it is sup- 
I posed it will, from the convention directly, with- 
i out previous submission, will nevertheless be a 
constitution which we can legally accept, and per- 
j haps, under the circumstances, ought to accept. 
I The Cincinnati platform is lugged again and 
! again into this controversy by the Senator. I have 
some little, but not much, faith in political plat- 
forms. You know, sir, how they are framed. A 
committee is appointed to draft resolutions; they 
bring them forward, and because they do not 
happen to expressly conflict with the sentiments 
of the wise gentlemen then and there assembled 
for another purpose than to build a political plat- 
form to guide all posterity, namely, to nominate 
candidates for President and Vice President, for- 
sooth they are to control Government and its 
policy from thence henceforth forever. I have no 
objection to the Cincinnati platform; on the con- 
trary,! believeit to bean admiralile one. It recog- 
nizes, in almost the language of the Kansas bill, 
the right of the people to regulate their domestic 
institutions in tiieir- own way. The people of 
Kansas have exercised that right in their own 
way, a way deemed legal; a way the President 
deems legal. True, there is opposition to that way, 
and some demand that their institutions shall be 
regulated in another way, namely, by the sub- 
mission of the constitution, emanating from what 
we deem a legal source, to the popular vote; when 
the source from which it emanated was not com- 
pelled by the people in enacting the law, calling 
that source into existence, to thus submit it. I 
should be pleased to have it submitted; but it is 
not my will, but the will of the people of Kansas, 
legally expressed, which is to control the matter. 
The people of Ivansas frame their own laws 
through a Legislature. I look at those laws, and 
find one calling a convention to frame a consti- 
tution, without requiring its submission to the 
people. The people, in fact, were willing to pari 
with control over it, and leave the whole matter in 
the hands of the convention. I can only know 
their will through their laws, and I knovv no 
right, except it be an arbitrary one, authorizing 
me or Congress to set aside or go behind their 
laws. 

The Senator takes exception to what he calls 
insinuations. Mr. President, much of his first 
speech was devoted to insinuation, and hence it 
ill becomes him to charge insinuations to others, 
when simply alluding to his own. It is well known 
that ho insinuated, in his opening remarks, that 
improper influences were at work upon the affairs 
of Kansas, either outside or within the Territory, 
of which he possessed a knowledge, and yet he 
would not give that knowledge to the Senate. 
He insinuated, as is within the recollection of 
every gentleman who heard him, that some kind 
of influence was at work, an improper and unau- 
thorized influence, to compel the slavery clause 
to be struck out of the constitution. He insir*- 
uated some sort (jf knowledge on his part that the 
"returns'' — emphasizing the word — would show 
a great majority for striking out that clause, as 



12 



though there was to be a second edition of the 
Oxford frauds, thouafh in an opposite direction; 
and he lind icnowludg:<'' of litis fact, but would 
not cominunicaio it. This was a mere insinu- 
ation. U|)on wiuit was it based ^ 

Now, again, he indulges in the same strain. 
He insinuates tiuU witliin sixty days those now 
agrceins^ with tiie President in liis views in rela- 
tion to this matter, particularly southern Sena- 
tors, will stand side by side witli liim, because the 
slavery clause will, in all probability, be stricken 
out. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I did not say northern or; 
southern. 1 

Air. FITCH. Then those who agree with the 
President. This is an insinuation that gentle- 
men — he says he did not indicate southern gen- 
tlemen — who have avowed, in public and private, 
their views and their determination to vote for 
this constitution, if it comes here with a fair elec- 
tion yesterday, not interrupted by force, whether 
the slavery clause b(; left in or voted out, leaving 
that question for the decision of the people, will 
change their determination if that clause be stricken 
out. 

Mr. President, it was to avoid just such an in- 1 
sinuation in relation to myself, because I knew it 
would come, that I determined, if an opportunity 
olfered, to state the reasons for my action in ad- j 
vance of any possible knowledge of the character ' 
of the decision yesterday. I was determined that 
neither that Senator, or others, should be able to : 
say to me, you would have voted dilTerently if, 
tiiat clause were in, or differently if it were out. 

Other insinuations are also made. One is that 
some power or person, some vague shadowy 
something, which he would not name or locate, 
was suborning and buying editors and letter-writ- 
ers to assail him. I have not the money, if I had ; 
the inclination, if it was intended in part for me. 

Another insinuation which I did not think 
proper to answer, and an uncalled for one, was, if 
I did not misunderstand his language yesterday,! 
that those who were opposed to him were, in a 
great measure, governed by Executive patronage 
and favor. 1 iiave nothing to ask of the Execu- 
tive, present or future, for myself, and scorn any i 
such imputation, come from where it may. When 
im)Hitatmns like that are thrown abroad to in- 
fluence and prejudice the people against their rep- 
resentatives here, it oidy indicates what kind of 
motive can govern the man who makes them. 

Mr. DOUGL.'VS. Mr. President, I have a word 
to say in regard to what the gentleman designates 
insinuation. It is true I did intimate by some 
form of expression, (the precise form 1 cannot! 
now call to mind,) that I had not the most im- 

idicit faith in the returns that will come from 
Kansas, as to the election held yesterday, and I 
will tell you why I intimated that doubt. In the 
first place, I saw that the convention took that 
election out from under the existing laws of the j 
Territory, and placed it under the direction of 
three commissioners to be appointed by the pres- 
ident of the convention, who should appoint the 
judges, and they the clerks, and hold the election 
without law. Ii is the first time in the history of 
this Government, so far as I know, that a con- 
vention has ever taken the election from under the 
existing laws of the land in the Territory. In the ' 
either cases the president of the convention has i', 



issued the writs of election to the sherilTs and the 

j other county officers who were authorized by law 
toconduct ei(;ctions:and it was provided that they 
should be conducted and returned according to 
law. Here they expressly took it away from th« 
law, and thus gave an opportunity to the judge* 
and clerks to make as many false returns as they 
pleased, without violating any law of the land. I 
thought it was very extraordinary that a conven- 
tion desirous of a fair election and honest returns 
should have taken it out from under the law, thu« 
to give unfaithful clerks and judges an opportu- 
nity, if they chose, to make false and frauduleni 
returns. That was the reason why 1 had my 
doubts. 

I looked into the constitution of thatconvenlioo 
and I found my doubts strengthened by that ex- 
amination, fori found that the Oxford frauds wera 
legalized in the constitution. I found that John- 
son county, which had only about four hundred 
legal voters, was assigned four representatives and 
two senators; while Shawnee county, with nin« 
hundred voters, was assigned two representatives 
and one senator. The county having double tha 
number of legal voters had but half the represent- 
ation. I am informed that, when that fact was 
called to the attention of the convention by Judg« 
Elmore, who represented Shawnee, and asked 
why it was, the answer given was: " The gentle- 
man forgets that Oxford city is in Johnson coun- 
ty." The adding of the one thousand six hundred 
fraudulent votes of Oxford city swelled the num- 
ber from four hundred to two thousand, and thus 
enabled them to give four representatives and two 
senators to Johnson county, based on that fraud-; 
when^ without the fraud, it would not have been 
entitled to more than one senator and one repre- 
sentative. 

It appearing on the face of the constitution that 
the Oxford fraud was thus legalized — it being as- 
certained that the fact of its being legalized was 
called to the attention of the convention at the time 
they did it — that Oxford fraud being alluded to a« 
a justification for doing it; and then it being known 
that the members of the convention almost unan- 
imously denounced Governor Walker for having 
set aside that fraud, furnished a presumption that 
there must have been a reason why they provided, 
by that schedule, that the returns hereafter should 
not be trammeled by any law which would au- 
thorize anybody to set aside frauds. With thesa 
facts before me, I did entertain a doubt as to 
whether it was intended that there should be 
honest returns* find I say now, frankly, I have 
not the slightest idea that those returns will b« 
entitled to any credit whatever. 

Mr. FITCH. Will the Senator allow me to 
interrupt him, because I cannot ask the Senator 
from Michigan to yield the lloor again.' Tho 
Senator from Illinois says that he based his insin- 
uation that improper motives were at work, either 
within or without Kansas, to insure the striking 
out of the slavery clause yesterday, on a knowl- 
edge of the fact that fraudulent returns had been 
previously made, and that the manner of election 
for the constitution was unusual. I have before 
me his language — the language of the insinuation. 
The facts to which he now refers had been long 
known to him. TheO.Kford tVaud was long known 
to him, for it was a matter of public notoriety for 
weeks before Congress assembled. The manner 



13 



in which the election of yesterday would be con- 
ducted was known. The schedule of their con- 
stitution and the report that their election would 
be conducted in that manner and by certain offi- 
cers created by the constitutional convention was 
well known for weeks. But the knowledge which 
was in his possession, and upon which he insin- 
uated improper motives were at work in Kansas 
to secure the striking out of the slavery clause, 
was something altogether different, if we are to 
believe the honorable Senator's words at the time 
of the delivery of his speech. He said: 

••I think I have seen enough in the lasitlirce da5s to ninke 
it certain tliat it will be retained out no matter liow the vote 
may stand." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am much obliged to the 
Senator for calling my attention, and that of the 
Senate, to the express language. The facts which 
1 have detailed warranted me in the supposition 
that there was an opportunity to return the slavery 
clause in or return it out, just as should be thought 
best, and that the convention intended to give that 
ojiportunity by providing, in effect, that the laws 
of the Territory, with their penalties, should not{ 
bo brought to bear on the offenders, if they did ; 
perpetrate fraud. 1 thought I saw such a de-' 
si^-n. I 



Now, what I alluded to having seen within the 
last three days, was this: there were rumors cur- 
rent — I did not know wiicther true or false, and 
I do not know now whether they are true or 
false — that several gentlemen had started from 
here to go by express to Kansas to use all their 
]iower and influence to get the pro-slavery clause 
stricken out, so that northern men could vote for 
the constitution, whereas it was supposed they 
could not if it was not stricken out. 

Mr. FITCH. Does the Senator wish to be 
understood as intimating that any northern Sen- 
ator sent such a message.' If so, in the spirit of 
his language to the Senator from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Bigi.er] yesterday, from what source does 
he derive his knowledge.' Who is his authority, 
and who sent the message.' 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I made no insinuation that 
any northern Senators or any southern Senators 
had anything to do with it. I stated that the 
rumors existed. I saw one gentleman, a warm 
pro-slavery man, who was hurrying off to Kansas 
for the purpose of inducing tliem to strike out the 
clause, in order that a vole of Congress should be 
received in favor of the constitution. He did not 
say that anybody sent him. I heard thai others 
had ffone. 






LIBRARY OF CONGREbb 





V< 



